Teams want the national championship to have a group only with the highest cities
Bernardo Ferreira
San Jose, which is in the Libertadores, plays at an altitude of 3.700m
Bolivians tend to benefit most from high-altitude matches, thanks to their cities located above 3.500 meters. This generates protests from Brazilians, Argentines, Uruguayans... and Bolivians themselves.
While fighting alongside FIFA to end the ban on matches over 2.750m, the country is divided - discreetly, it's true - on the issue.
Some teams complain about playing at altitude, so they've suggested splitting the Bolivian Championship into two groups. The first would be made up of teams from the highest cities: La Paz (3.600m), Oruro (3.700m), and Potosí (3.960m). The second would be made up of cities at lower altitudes—by Bolivian standards, as Sucre, for example, is at 2.800m. Thus, trips to higher ground would only be inevitable in the final stage.
For the 2008 Libertadores, teams from the highest cities in the country have qualified: La Paz FC, Real Potosí and San Jose (from Oruro).
La Paz, detrimental to the selection
There's also debate in Bolivia about whether the national team should continue playing in La Paz, where it didn't achieve good results in recent qualifiers. In the current one, it drew 0-0 with Colombia.
"Santa Cruz wants to host the qualifiers because playing in La Paz hasn't been good for the team. Many players come from sea level and don't adapt to the altitude. In other words, we're playing as visitors," says journalist Gery Zurita of the Santa Cruz newspaper "Deber."
He adds that, despite this internal division, no Bolivian opposes the right to host games at altitude. Above all, as President Evo Morales likes to say, there is the universality of football.
Bolivian doctor suggests rule change
Altitude expert says modern football needs five or seven substitutions
Bernardo Ferreira From GLOBOESPORTE.COM, in Rio de Janeiro
Doctor Jorge Flores worked for the Bolivian Football Federation from 1992 to 2002, heading the medical committee. During this period, he conducted statistical research on 2.749 matches played in the country between 1977 and 1995 to assess the effects of altitude on players, and then went to FIFA to advocate for high-altitude football.
Today, the 67-year-old Bolivian, trained in Brazil, maintains his opinion that there is a decline in performance but no risk of death for a player at altitude. He champions the universality of football, like most of his compatriots, but criticizes the radical way in which the federation and President Evo Morales defend their views.
Is it fair for FIFA to ban matches at altitudes above 2.750m?\ High altitude can affect health, yes, as can low altitude. There has never been a death at altitude. It's possible that a player could die if there are more matches at altitude, just as players die at sea level.\
But isn't there an advantage for teams playing at altitude? Yes, there is a drop in performance for those not accustomed to the altitude, and Bolivian clubs themselves face this problem. According to a study we conducted, altitude reduces athletic performance by 25%. According to FIFA, it reduces it by 30%. This increases the chances of the visiting team conceding a goal in the final 30 minutes. Therefore, I propose making five substitutions per game, not three.
Would this rule only apply to games at altitude?\ The five substitutions should be used worldwide, because many players are dying from heart problems. Currently, there's a risk of a tired player remaining on the field after all three substitutions have already been made. Football today is much more physical, and players tire more quickly. Ideally, there would be seven substitutions. Or substitutions could be made at any time, like in basketball.\
Wouldn't that be a radical measure for FIFA? I'm just giving my medical opinion. It's up to football executives to decide whether or not to adopt these measures. But the International Football Association changed its mind in 1968, when it began accepting substitutions in football.
Have you already presented this proposal to the Bolivian Federation? Yes, but they don't want to make it public. The federation prefers to maintain football as it is, rather than seeking a balance and considering the health of the players. It's important that the result is a consequence of the game and not dependent on extra-sporting advantages.
What message would you send to Flamengo, which is trying to get FIFA to ban matches above 2.750m in the Libertadores? I would say we need to seek compensation for teams playing at altitude, while maintaining the universality of football. You can't take football away from some cities. If Flamengo goes to Potosí and makes seven substitutions, they won't feel anything and will win the game.